Withdrawal of regularization based on educational qualifications after judicial directions is arbitrary and violates fundamental rights under Articles 14, 16, and 21.

JUDGMENT :

Sameer Jain, J.

1. The present petition is filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking appropriate writs, orders, or directions for the protection of fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner invokes the jurisdiction of this Court to challenge an order passed on 02.08.2017, by which the regularization of the petitioner on the post of Class-IV employee was denied, notwithstanding specific and categorical directions issued by the learned Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as the "Tribunal"), the Single Bench of this Court, and the Division Bench of this Court, despite the fact that these directions were upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.

SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL APPEARING FOR THE PETITIONER:

2. At the outset, learned counsel had contended that the petitioner was initially appointed as a Class IV employee by the respondents on 17.09.1992. However, the services of the petitioner were terminated on 30.07.1994. The petitioner, aggrieved by his termination, approached the learned Tribunal, which, after a prolonged battle of approximately 10 years, vide its award dated 03.06.2004, set aside the termination order and directed the petitioners’ reinstatement with continuity in service, along with 25% of back wages. In compliance with this award, the petitioner was allowed to rejoin his duties on 28.12.2005 (Annexure-2).

3. It was further contended that notwithstanding the petitioner’s reinstatement, the respondents, with a vindictive attitude, terminated the petitioner’s services once again by order dated 13.06.2006. Consequentially, the petitioner challenged this termination, however, the learned Tribunal, vide its award dated 02.05.2012, upheld the termination order. The petitioner being aggrieved of the award dated 02.05.2012 filed a writ petition before this Court bearing no. SBCWP NO. 12345/2012, seeking reinstatement and quashing of the impugned order and award dated 13.06.2006 and 02.05.2012, respectively.

4. Thereafter, a prolonged battle in the courts, the Court, vide order dated 26.11.2015 passed in SBCWP No. 12345/2012 (supra) directed the respondents to reinstate the petitioner and further to consider his case for regularization, provided he was found eligible in accordance with the applicable rules. However, despite the directions of the Court, the respondents did not comply, prompting the petitioner to file a contempt petition.

5. Sequentially, vide order dated 20.12.2016 (Annexure-4), this Court disposed of the contempt petition, directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner and allow him to join his duties in compliance with the order dated 26.11.2015. Subsequently, the respondent authority vide order dated 26.12.2016 regularized the petitioner’s pay-scale of Rs. 5200-20200 Grade Pay 1800 under the employment of Kumarappa National Handmade Paper Institute (KNHPI), a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, with effect from the date of the order. However, vide corrigendum dated 06.03.2017, the regularization order dated 26.12.2016 was abruptly withdrawn by the respondents.

6. Ultimately, by an impugned order dated 02.08.2017, the regularization of the petitioner was rejected and denied on the ground that the petitioner did not possess the educational qualifications required as per the rules of the respondent, the Khadi and Village Industries Commission (KVIC), at the time the order was passed. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that this denial is arbitrary, discriminatory, and violative of the petitioners’ constitutional rights.

7. Consecutively, vide order dated 30.11.2017, the contempt petition filed by the petitioner was disposed of by this Court, granting liberty to the petitioner to avail of appropriate legal remedies. After the disposal of the contempt petition, the petitioner was not allo